Re^2: proving something other than perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: proving something other than perl by jfroebe (Parson) on Jan 24, 2007 at 19:21 UTC
Ahhh! That clears things up! :) Yes, you can do that. Probably the easiest way would be to have your t/my_app_1.t execute the non-perl stuff and return the correct code whether it failed or succeeded. I highly recommend checking out Ian Longworth & chromatic's Perl Testing - A Developer's Notebook (ISBN: 0-596-10092-2). Hope this helps. Jason L. Froebe Help find a cure for breast cancer! Net proceeds benefit the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the National Philanthropic Trust. Help by donating - I'm walking 60 miles in 3 days in August 2007. (The day I return from TechWave is the first day of the Walk). Blog, Tech Blog	[reply]
Re^3: proving something other than perl by sgt (Deacon) on Jan 24, 2007 at 20:28 UTC
Strictly speaking you can "prove" using some wrapped up TAP output! for example a file can be sent (system perl, curl, sftp etc..) to any prove-abled server (if you don't want to speak apache, Net::Server or HTTP::Server::Lite with a trivial CGI comes to mind). Now about the OP question: build systematically wrappers for processes-to-be (created from C, C++, java -- for java you often need a wrapper anyway for classpath and libs) and you use the OS (i.e the shell exit status). It is not really tough to generate TAP output, is it? (tee is useful). For a given process, I keep the output of one "correct" run in one file, and compare subsequent ones with that reference file. Some of the basic infrastructure can be automated and some templates are useful (output files can be generated by perl in another machine if you like, but with a decent shell, shell eval is your friend!) Welcome to the world of "external testing" it is much harder than the other one so that's why you don't see much of it ;) a good shell is ksh that you can get from http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/, grab ksh93s for all the platforms that lack a decent shell; for cygwin (windows!) I recommend using still ksh93r (as there are problems that I will soon report to the ast-users list) and by the way, to use ksh on cygwin you don't need the whole cygwin stuff just the cygwin1.dll and maybe a few commands like curl and tar). So you make your little shell tarball where you don't have a decent shell. Also the perl that comes with the system can obviously be useful and can COOPERATE HEALTHILY with the shell and other commands, no? ;) % stephan@armen (/home/stephan) % % cygcheck /usr/ast-ksh93r/arch/cygwin.i386/bin/ksh93r.exe C:/cygwin/usr/ast-ksh93r/arch/cygwin.i386/bin/ksh93r.exe C:\cygwin\bin\cygwin1.dll C:\WINDOWS\system32\ADVAPI32.DLL C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntdll.dll C:\WINDOWS\system32\KERNEL32.dll C:\WINDOWS\system32\RPCRT4.dll C:/cygwin/usr/ast-ksh93r/arch/cygwin.i386/bin\cygshell11.dll C:/cygwin/usr/ast-ksh93r/arch/cygwin.i386/bin\cygast54.dll C:/cygwin/usr/ast-ksh93r/arch/cygwin.i386/bin\cygcmd12.dll C:/cygwin/usr/ast-ksh93r/arch/cygwin.i386/bin\cygdll10.dll [download] hth --stephan the un*x way? cooperation!	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: proving something other than perl by Solo (Deacon) on Jan 24, 2007 at 19:27 UTC
test stuff that isn't perl Apache::Test is the biggest example that comes to mind. I've also used Test::Output, but not in a while. --Solo -- You said you wanted to be around when I made a mistake; well, this could be it, sweetheart.	[reply]
Re^3: proving something other than perl by petdance (Parson) on Jan 26, 2007 at 17:24 UTC
The reason I wrote prove was so that I could test PHP scripts along with the rest of my Perl programs. The key is to create a Test::Harness::Strap module that does the right thing, and to load that strap with the --strap argument on the command-line. I know it's hardly a complete answer, but I hope it gets you pointed in the right direction. xoxo, Andy	[reply]